That’s not fair, said I to myself. I’m almost always cordial and friendly. I’ve tried really hard to be
patient and not divisive or heated. And if you’re talking about that Michael Voris thing, that doesn’t count. Come on! He deserved it! Plus, sometimes a girl just needs to rant, you know?

No, said my stupid, honest, irritatingly square conscience. You don’t need to rant. You just want to. And fine, go and do it in a closet or something. But don’t do it in an online platform that reaches thousands of people a week. All you are doing is causing scandal and tarnishing the name of Patheos, not to mention the name of Christ whom you claim to represent to all in an inter-faith forum. That’s to all, yo. Even Michael Voris.

I hate my conscience. Being snarky is fun! I love snark. I love me some Bloggess and some Electric Venom. I love to write snark. A wise editor once told me never to be snarky. That is advice I hold fast to sometimes and try my best to ignore other times. It’s just that snark is so much fun. And people eat it up. They love it. Just like I love it.

Until it’s turned on me. I’ve been the target of some pretty snarky blog posts, comments, and entire forum threads. It’s not fun to be snarked at. But it’s even worse when they’re right. It’s worse because it takes twice as much time to get yourself to admit that yes, you’ve been a total asshat, because you’re so hurt and angry about the asshats who are laughing snarkily at you.

I was exhilarated when I published that Michael Voris post. It was so much fun to write. The words came easily. I enjoyed myself tremendously. I felt some conscience-twinging before I put it up so I passed around the Catholic Patheosi to get reactions. Then I mostly ignored the negative ones and published it. It was a solid post, I told myself. Maybe not the most charitable, but a post, and I didn’t have any more time to blog that day. Whatever. I can’t be charitable all the time, you know, I told the Ogre.Sometimes I just have to tell it like it is.

In the post, I couched my rant in terms of “this is really a public service announcement, you know, just so that non-Catholics don’t think we’re really this deranged.” That was completely disingenuous, and not even cleverly so. It was a weak excuse to foam at the mouth, throw someone under the bus, and stir up a hornet’s nest. I don’t actually know if that was a consciously-formed intention, but I sure did refresh the combox gleefully that afternoon. I was even disappointed that there weren’t more angry commenters.

I’m sure that Michael Voris didn’t see that post, but if he had, it would have had the same effect as walking up to him on the street and spitting in his face.I made no coherent argument. There was no true concern and not the slightest hint of charity. I do think he was wrong. The video did upset me. The mature, charitable,Christian thing to do would have been to write a post laying out an argument, pointing out errors, and attempting to open up a dialogue. Instead, I laid on the virtual floor and kicked and screamed like my toddler sometimes does. She gets sent to time-out for that, and has to come back and apologize.

So this is is me, coming back and apologizing. In no way did anything I wrote in that post contribute to fruitful dialogue in this virtual reality. I do think that video is wrong on so many levels, but throwing a public hissy fit about it only caused more division, strife, and anger-the very things I was upset about Michael Voris doing.

You may need to read the whole thing for context but Calah's post has me wondering.

Is snarking under attack? Is it always wrong to be... well... a snarkass?

There's a person I now read regularly who I consider to be a premiere snarkass. I don't think you can get much more snarky than the snark that comes from Mark Shea's keyboard.

Snarky Mark is constantly challenging my premises, constantly making me rethink what I think instictively, constantly allowing me to see a perspective I've not seen before. His snarkassedness pisses me off in the moment but... I keep going back and when I do, I see something in a new light, I see something freshly, and, I believe (more times reluctantly) that I'm becoming the Catholic I'm supposed to become.

Of course, the risk is that I'll begin to see Mark, who is after all a human and thus flawed, as the end all for all things Catholic. Yet, the more I read Mark, the more I see that he's keenly aware of that risk and communicates it regularly. And besides, thankfully, I don't always come around to his way of thinking. Heh.

Anyway, all this to say that though I appreciate Calah's caveats, I do think there's a place for snarkasses.

When clergy panders to politicians, no matter where they begin, they end by whittling the Gospels down
to the parts that they can twist to support the political agenda of the party or politician they are following. They usually leave the cross over their altars, but they might as well not. Your god is who you obey. Your god is who you follow. If these failed shepherds were being honest, they would remove the cross from their churches and replace it with the Republican elephant or the Democrat Donkey.

Right-wing preachers, who toady to the Republicans, either ignore or belittle the calls for social justice that pertain to the poor in particular and everyone who is in need in general. They basically dropkick the Sermon on the Mount off the front step of their churches. They pull verses and even parts of verses out of context to justify and support blatant corporatism and the economic destruction of the people in order to enrich those who control the political party they follow.

Left-wing preachers, who toady to the Democrats, carry this a step further. Rather then using proof texts pulled out of odd places in Scripture to justify themselves, they tend to obliterate the whole book.

These folks are big on applying literary criticism to the Bible. This method of scriptural analysis is the systematic application of fantasy involving a confabulated ”Q Document” and weighty-sounding but baseless judgements based on authorial style and voice. It’s a kind of web-spinning that produces wordy exegesis that is simply a theoretical construct erroneously presented as hard fact.

This convenient acceptance of literary criticism calls the entire Bible into question. It provides the intellectual gloss for what is simply cherry-picking the Gospels for the parts you find consistent with your secular values. Scripture that demands justice and sets limits on our sexual and social behavior is expunged.

Between these two sets of bogus shepherds, there is nothing of the Scriptures left. They have successfully edited and challenged the entire Bible out of relevance to today’s society. They have obviated everything that gives them the right to hold their jobs.

Is it any wonder that everyone from atheists to zealot pro-abortionists flings proof texts at Christians? They take these verses out of context and apply them ignorantly, true. They have zero knowledge of how the whole of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation fits together to tell a single, albeit convoluted, story. They certainly don’t see that the Bible is always, no matter how far afield it may seem to go, about Jesus Christ. They’re ignorant, and they can be almost comically bombastic, but it’s hard to get really mad at them. After all, they learned to do this from our own clergy.

We are not like sheep without a shepherd. We are sheep without a shepherd. We’ve got lots of preachers. We’ve got them on television, making millions and preaching a heretical political gospel of greed. We’ve got feel-good preachers, giving us a Hallmark card Jesus made of cotton candy and sticky glue. We’ve got others reviling, slandering and attacking those on the other side of whatever political spectrum the preacher in question supports. We’ve got them hanging out in their rectories, living cozy lives and getting by without ruffling feathers.

Pick your flavor. There’s a preacher out there who will give you a phony jesus to match.

Today’s church has reduced Calvary to an Easter egg hunt and a pretty pageant. It has sanitized the scandal of our God Who was subjected to the most shameful disregard society could mete out; Who was left weak and piteous, Who appeared helpless; a criminal.

The cross was shameful then and it’s shameful now. Jesus was not only wrongly convicted, he was beaten nearly to death; tortured, mocked, reviled and when He hung on the cross in agony, His tormenters stood at its foot and made fun of Him, mocked Him the more.

The cross is shameful, embarrassing, hard. Christ and Him crucified is the whole message of the Bible. If you don’t preach that, you are not preaching at all.

I think it’s pertinent to our discussion that Calvary was an actual event in history. The blood was real. The pain, humiliation, helplessness, degradation were all real. They happened. Jesus was flesh and bone, just like any of us. He felt every single bit of it. He endured both the physical pain and the psychological death of the aloneness of being weak and helpless in the hands of human monsters.

The people who did this were a bunch of lying priests and a cowardly politician, all of whom put their careers, their power, their vaunting self-importance, ahead of doing what was right.

We live in a world where it’s getting harder to follow Jesus with each passing day. Christians are slaughtered in a genocidal fury in many places, subjected to overt discrimination, harassment and constant fear of worse in many others.

Here in America elected officials are scolded if they mention Christ in public. The name of Jesus is subjected to public ridicule and mockery. Rank and file Christians of every denomination feel compelled to self-censor their speech concerning their belief in Christ to avoid being belittled, shunned and perhaps endangering their employment.

This is our cross. We have been running away from it and we’ve got to stop. We must, in the name of Jesus, take up these challenges, which are the challenges of our time in history. It is not shameful to be attacked and belittled for following Jesus. it is an honor and a privilege. It is a blessing.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

When I was a teenager I was a fan of
the Mary Tyler Moore Show. I even followed her friend Rhoda
Morgenstern when she moved to New York from Minneapolis to start her
own show called, well, Rhoda. Rhoda, played by Valerie Harper, was
always looking for a man. In New York she found him.

Joe, played by David Groh, was divorced
with a ten year old son, but he and Rhoda hit it off. Before the
first season was over, Rhoda and Joe got married. I'm told that the
episode of the wedding was one of the highest rated television shows
of its time. Apparently, I wasn't alone in following Rhoda's
adventure.

Joe, having experienced the pain of
divorce, is reluctant to enter into another marriage. But Rhoda is
looking for a commitment. Joe suggests that they can move in
together. That sets up a sit-com discussion of the relative merits of
marriage and shacking up.

There was a lot of hype around the show
and especially the wedding. I remember seeing Valerie Harper in an
interview describing a bit of how the decision to marry was to take
place on her show. She explained that the script had Joe suggesting
that they move in together but Rhoda is reluctant to do so. Joe
pleads, “Come on, Rhoda. It's no big deal.” And Rhoda responds,
according to Ms. Harper, “Joe, if it's no big deal, then I don't
want it!”

That struck this teenager as a pretty
wise response. Marriage is a big deal. I knew it then. I know it even
better now. Two people becoming one flesh, raising children and
making a life together, is a big deal that requires a big commitment.
Shacking up is a temporary arrangement of convenience; no strings
attached, no real commitment. Since love is a commitment; no
commitment, no love. And Love is a big deal.

I remember the interview because I was
shocked when I saw the actual episode she described. I was
anticipating hearing Rhoda school Joe on commitment and love. But she
never said that line on the air. Instead, Rhoda actually moves in
with Joe and then whines.... “Joe, I want married!” There is no
explanation. No wisdom. Just quid pro quo. “I did what you wanted.
Now, you'd better do what I want.” So, Joe reluctantly agrees and
they plan their wedding.

It isn't surprising that the show
didn't survive in people's hearts and minds or even very long on TV.
It isn't surprising that the marriage of Rhoda and Joe didn't survive
either. They were separated and divorced in the third season of the
show. I think most of us had stopped watching long before then.

I don't know why the editors cut the
wisdom originally given Rhoda. Maybe they thought it would be
funnier. Foolishness is sometimes comical. More often though, it is
just sad. Seeking love without commitment is as foolish as drinking
from an empty glass. It's not funny at all.

We live in a time when the spiritual underpinnings of western civilization are being methodically removed and Biblical principles undermined. Biblical Christianity is held up to ridicule, often scoffed at and mocked. Mention words like holiness, repentance, atonement and redemption to someone…practically anyone… these days, and you will most likely receive either a vacant, puzzled stare or a dismissive rolling of the eyes. If you mention the word “sin”, be prepared for petulant or condescending scorn. If you mention moral truth, expect open hostility. Today, ideas such as these register like malignant alien intruders in this progressive, “All-You-Need-Is-Love-(baby)” age.

These unsafe and foreign ideas, like metastasizing cancer cells (one must imagine), must be corralled and quarantined at all costs. Traditional, orthodox Biblical concepts are being flagged and marked as culturally taboo. In some quarters, they are considered quite dangerous. In the name of public safety and…(ahem)… “tolerance”, the open expression of these traditional…(but now backward and ill-conceived)… “Bible- ideas” from God’s Word, are being purposefully marginalized and bullied into submission. Increasingly, centuries-old traditional Christian morals, views and values are judged to be intolerant, unfit, unwelcome and unworthy of consideration in post-modern public discourse. Today, only the Secular-Progressive, pop-cultural worldview… the guiding light of stylish and fashionable New Age Self-Esteem and Sensation-ism… may be presented, pushed and promoted, and it must be done so appropriately…that is to say, unopposed and unchallenged.

Actor Christopher Reeve expressed the ’enlightened’ sentiment well: "When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have a place at the table."

Translation: Only the religion of Secular Humanism allowed. When “Superman” speaks, God is silenced. In other words, if you must be ‘religious’, keep it to yourself in private isolation. Keep silent….. Say nothing.

The intimidating, seductive and cunningly deceptive spirit of Jezebel is alive and well.

Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack,
despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s "Fox News Sunday" out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is"not really news."

Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.

In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.

That more liberals aren't calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.

Sure, everyone understands how some of Fox's opinion programming would get under President Obama's skin, the same way MSNBC from 4pm until closing time is not the favorite stop for Republicans. But it's not okay -- or presidential -- to continue smearing an entire network of hard working journalists because you are mad at Sean Hannity.

During the initial launch of the war on Fox News in October 2009, then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told the New York Times of Fox News, “[W]e don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” On CNN, she declared that Fox was a “wing of the Republican Party.” Then: “let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

Gosh, this sounds so familiar. In fact, it’s exactly the line that Media Matters used in a 2010 memo to donors: “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

In fact, this is the signature line of Media Matters in discussing Fox News, which they say they exist to destroy. Their CEO, David Brock told Politico in 2011 that their strategy was a “war on Fox” that is executed by 90 staff members and a $10 million yearly budget, gratis liberal donors.

Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.

This can only happen in a country that allows it to happen and the fact is that too many people are watching The Bachelor, American Idol and Broke Girls to give a rat's patoot.

The Obama administration is not being held accountable, whether it be the media, the GOP or most sadly, the American people.

He was running second, some distance behind race leader Abel Mutai -- bronze medalist in the 3,000-meter steeplechase at the London Olympics. As they entered the finishing straight, he saw the Kenyan runner -- the certain winner of the race -- mistakenly pull up about 10 meters before the finish, thinking he had already crossed the line.

Fernandez Anaya quickly caught up with him, but instead of exploiting Mutai's mistake to speed past and claim an unlikely victory, he stayed behind and, using gestures, guided the Kenyan to the line and let him cross first.

Tough decision, right? Actually, no.

"He was the rightful winner," Fernandez Anaya said. "He created a gap that I couldn't have closed if he hadn't made a mistake. As soon as I saw he was stopping, I knew I wasn't going to pass him."

After a two and a half year legal battle, 15 tons of cheese made and aged near Mountain View was
hauled to a dump. To fans of natural foods, it is monumental waste and over-regulation. To Missouri's Milk Board, it's merely protecting public health.

"I see the destruction of what my wife and I and family have worked to build," said Joseph Dixon, owner of Morningland Dairy.

Dixon and his family aren't the only ones outraged by the trashing of about 30,000 pounds of cheese produced on the farm in Howell County.

"You said earlier you would weigh this cheese. How do we know that you're being held accountable gentlemen?" a bystander asked of State Milk Board members.

Members of the State Milk Board, which embargoed the cheese 2 1/2 years ago, arrived to dozens of protestors.

"You have people here today that are saying, hold it! We have questions why, and that's why these people are here, and we appreciate everyone being here," said Dixon.

Joseph and Denise Dixon took over Morningland Dairy after Denise completed a two year internship with the founders of Morningland, Jim and Margie Reiner. The Dixons finalized the purchase and began improvements on the Missouri Milk Board inspected and approved raw milk cheese plant in October of 2008. The entire family was tremendously pleased because this would allow Joseph to be home with the family instead of on the road working as an electrician in the eastern half of the United States. The Dixons wanted to expand the varieties of cheese made by the company and ventured into a broader array of production.

Their desire was to help other families in the historically poverty stricken Missouri Ozarks to make an actual living on the farm and allow families to stay together. They consulted with the Missouri Milk Board and arranged for two families to begin providing goat milk to Morningland and launched a popular goat milk cheese line shortly after taking over the company.

Morningland had six employees and other farming families dependent upon the continuance of the cheese plant. On August 26th, 2010, it came to a screeching halt.

While Joseph and Denise were at a cheese making conference in Washington State, the plant manager received a call from the Missouri Milk Board stating that there was an issue of potential contamination found by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) in Morningland cheese.

The cooler of $250,000 worth of cheese was immediately put under embargo, more accurately understood as house arrest, by the Missouri Milk Board. Don Falls, an inspector for the Milk Board, told the plant manager, “You should be back up and running by early next week.” Obviously, that wasn’t true. As a matter of fact, the very next morning, presumably after he spoke with the FDA, Falls’ entire attitude changed.

Over the weekend, the FDA leaked a nation wide recall on all of Morningland’s cheese produced in 2010. Not just the two batches that California indicated might be “suspect” for contamination, but their entire year’s production. Most of the cheese implicated as “suspect” by California had already been consumed. No complaints or ill effects were reported by any of the consumers of any of Morningland’s cheese. Nonetheless, the FDA required all of their products to be recalled.

Death by Bureaucracy

Very few people realize the FDA has an armed and very military aspect. They showed up at Morningland in camouflage and made a lovely impression on those able to be at the unveiling of the future of food safety “FDA style”.

The FDA and Milk Board worked hand in hand to ensure that this little cheese plant in the midst of the Missouri Ozarks, that hadn’t made anyone sick in 30 years, would never make another batch of cheese for their loyal customers. Yet the FDA, who admit to killing 100,000 people a year, are allowed to gain ever more control over everything we take into our bodies. So the tally on deaths over the 30 year history of Morningland Dairy versus the FDA is: Morningland “Zero”, FDA “3 Million”…or somewhere near that.

Despite significant effort, the FDA found no contamination in any cracks or drains in the cheese plant or even on the legs of the milk talk in the dairy barn. This evidence was not allowed to be introduced as part of Morningland’s defense because the Missouri Attorney General’s office contended that the FDA “was a separate issue.”

When pointedly asked what the specific process for getting the cheese plant back into production was, the Milk Board representative said it would involve a panel and consultation with the FDA to determine if that were a possibility. The members of the panel, other than the Milk Board and the FDA, and the specific requirements and processes were never delineated and no effort to achieve anything other than the destruction of the plant was ever evidenced by any official arm of the State of Missouri.

Neither the State of Missouri or the FDA ever conducted any tests on Morningland’s cheese. As a matter of fact, when Morningland tried to contract with a State approved lab to do proper tests on batches of their cheese, they were told that the lab simply did not want to get involved in the controversy. Morningland was denied the ability to legitimately test their product and defend their livelihood.

Adding insult to injury, Milk Board employee Don Falls testified in court and under oath that, improperly collected cheese samples, taken with no supervision and no instruction by an employee of Morningland for the plant’s manager, were in fact the State’s own tests. This remains a very sore point for Joseph Dixon. He says, “When one commits perjury and no one in authority will hold them accountable for it, that individual and the system they support are nothing more than liars and thieves. In this case, the theft is of our ability to provide for our family and is based on bearing false witness to harm people who have harmed no one.”